PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Romney website: ‘Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts’


Taco John
06-28-2012, 03:09 PM
Conservatives around the country may be regretting Chief Justice John Roberts’ appointment to the Supreme Court after Thursday’s ruling upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, but Mitt Romney‘s campaign website still holds him up as the paradigm of a Supreme Court justice.

“As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito,” the “Courts & Constitution” section of Romney’s website continues to read hours after the decision was handed down.

“These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called ‘the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected’: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles.”

Roberts, who was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, joined the court’s more liberal justices in ruling the law constitutional in a 5-4 decision.

Some conservatives have ripped Roberts for his vote.

Conservative leader Brent Bozell, for instance, went as far as to call Roberts “a traitor to his philosophy.”

“His reputation is forever stained in the eyes of conservatives, and there will be no rehabilitating of it,” Bozell told TheDC’s Matt Lewis. “He will be seen as a traitor to his philosophy.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/romney-website-mitt-will-nominate-judges-in-the-mold-of-chief-justice-roberts/#ixzz1z7mTUNMr

Taco John
06-28-2012, 03:10 PM
Roberts just undermined any reason to vote for Mitt Romney. Conservatives should consider giving their support to Gary Johnson at this point and redirecting the Republican party back to traditional constitutional roots.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 03:11 PM
Conservatives around the country may be regretting Chief Justice John Roberts’ appointment to the Supreme Court after Thursday’s ruling upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, but Mitt Romney‘s campaign website still holds him up as the paradigm of a Supreme Court justice.

“As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito,” the “Courts & Constitution” section of Romney’s website continues to read hours after the decision was handed down.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/romney-website-mitt-will-nominate-judges-in-the-mold-of-chief-justice-roberts/#ixzz1z7mTUNMr

Awesome

HonestChieffan
06-28-2012, 03:13 PM
have a feeling that will change

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 03:17 PM
If the guy can't even run a website, how can he run the country?

/conservatives

KILLER_CLOWN
06-28-2012, 10:19 PM
Hmmmmm...The fix is in...who would have thought it?

Ugly Duck
06-28-2012, 10:41 PM
“As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts"

ROFLLMAO:LOL::clap:LMAOROFL:LOL::LOL::LOL::clap:ROFLROFLLMAO

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:54 PM
“As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts"

ROFLLMAO:LOL::clap:LMAOROFL:LOL::LOL::LOL::clap:ROFLROFLLMAO

14 or so hours later, it is still there. This is an obvious endorsement of Roberts's decision. You've been warned, Rs.

CoMoChief
06-29-2012, 05:45 AM
14 or so hours later, it is still there. This is an obvious endorsement of Roberts's decision. You've been warned, Rs.

Ah..still believe in the 2 party system ???

Don't ya think it's time to wake up and realize both parties are equally as bad and are bought and paid for?

Donger
06-29-2012, 05:57 AM
Roberts just undermined any reason to vote for Mitt Romney. Conservatives should consider giving their support to Gary Johnson at this point and redirecting the Republican party back to traditional constitutional roots.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 06:28 AM
Look who was right about Roberts when he was nominated—Ann Coulter.

She was not excited about him, nor was I. She said his record was ambiguous; that there were so many other strong conservative judges out there with records as strong conservatives ( btw for the left—this means a stricter constructionist not a living Constitution believer.) Plus he wasn't a member of the Federalist Society.

So many conservatives were blinded under Bush—and still are apparently. I say Bush intentionally picked a justice with such an ambiguous record. I mean even Laura, his wife, was dissing the Republicans for being against Obamacare. Don't ever elect another Bush, such as Jeb. Mitt's the same. But I now see this election has a referendum on Obamacare.

Brainiac
06-29-2012, 07:37 AM
I'm not happy about the decision made by Roberts on this particular case because Obamacare is such a bad law and I was hoping to see it thrown out. However, as a general rule I don't think it's a bad thing for a Supreme Court Justice to vote his conscience and/or his actual interpretation of the law as it applies to each individual case.

For the last couple of decades the Republicans AND the Democrats have always demanded that their Presidents nominate Supreme Court Justices based upon strict adherence to ideology. I, however, would prefer NOT to have a Supreme Court stacked with Justices who almost always vote along liberal and conservative lines. I'd prefer to have a less politicized Supreme Court.

Assuming that he truly voted his conscience and his interpretation of the law (and that he didn't bow to pressure from Obama or some Jedi mind control trick), then I have no problem with the decision made by Chief Justice Roberts. I would also have no problem with Romney or any other President nominating future Justices in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts. Less politicization of the Supreme Court would be a good thing.

Extra Point
06-29-2012, 08:01 AM
Look who was right about Roberts when he was nominated—Ann Coulter.

She was not excited about him, nor was I. She said his record was ambiguous; that there were so many other strong conservative judges out there with records as strong conservatives ( btw for the left—this means a stricter constructionist not a living Constitution believer.) Plus he wasn't a member of the Federalist Society.

So many conservatives were blinded under Bush—and still are apparently. I say Bush intentionally picked a justice with such an ambiguous record. I mean even Laura, his wife, was dissing the Republicans for being against Obamacare. Don't ever elect another Bush, such as Jeb. Mitt's the same. But I now see this election has a referendum on Obamacare.

Not pickin' on ya, but "conservative" and "liberal" are worthless words, these days. A conservative interpretation of the law, using the constitution as the boilerplate, was rendered by Roberts.

I haven't read the 2,700 (is it that many?) pp of the law, and rendered any decision. A WSJ article a friend shared, indicated that Roberts opened the door of scrutiny of existing laws:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577494723149538572.html?grcc=88888Z0ZhpgeZ0Z0Z0Z0Z0&mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_health "But many conservative("Rt Wing or Const ?) lawyers and law professors emphasized the decision's perceived silver linings. 'At least he made clear that there are some clear limits under the Commerce Clause. To me, that suggests a Chief Justice who's trying to do the right thing,' said Stephen B. Presser, a law professor at Northwestern University."

Ace Gunner
06-29-2012, 08:07 AM
Well, duh. This country is corporatist. First, they "declare war on" the people, then they make the people buy car insurance (that was previously affordable, but because we were suddenly getting over run by illegal immigrants who did not obey laws like getting a driver license and car insurance and they were getting in accidents left and right because suddenly we had a shit ton of drivers on the roads that weren't on the books, therefore we did not adjust our roads for the invisible yet real traffic and so, boom - bash) and then we all end up paying for the invasion of several countries that would later become cheap labor for mega corporate profits (Nike corporation, for example, employs 600,000 asians with a huge factory located in "good morning" Vietnam) while supplying huge profit margins, and now americans are puzzled as to which direction will be chosen by future leaders of this country/corporate province. Figures. They could decide to shit can this latest teaming of gov't and industry with a change in leadership.

Heh, I'd take that bet. The one that says no change in direction looking to the future of "the people's republic for a 'democratic' America".

Nafta. Asian manufacturing dominance driven by american corporate profit. Cap & Trade. And now, a healthcare plan designed to be expanded globally.

All on our dime. What a surprise. Damn.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2012, 08:13 AM
Heh LMAO

Chiefshrink
06-29-2012, 08:38 AM
Bottom line: Gotta keep that "Taxation without Representation" thing going strong:shrug:

Judges like Robber, whoops ! I mean Roberts ensures this to happen:thumb:

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 09:40 AM
Still...I can't agree with you here.

Not pickin' on ya, but "conservative" and "liberal" are worthless words, these days.
To you perhaps—but not to me. To me, these words are only worthless when discerning any substantial differences in the two parties and that those on the left are not really liberals. They're illiberal as they sacrifice the individual for the collective. That's not classical liberalism. I heard it called " Leninism on an installment plan" by someone. Thought that was pretty good.

A conservative interpretation of the law, using the constitution as the boilerplate, was rendered by Roberts.

In your opinion. True conservatives are not agreeing with this either, particularly with the "boilerplate" part.

BTW I clarified what I meant by conservative somewhere for this topic in one of the threads on this topic—stricter construction.

I haven't read the 2,700 (is it that many?) pp of the law, and rendered any decision. A WSJ article a friend shared, indicated that Roberts opened the door of scrutiny of existing laws:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577494723149538572.html?grcc=88888Z0ZhpgeZ0Z0Z0Z0Z0&mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_health "But many conservative("Rt Wing or Const ?) lawyers and law professors emphasized the decision's perceived silver linings. 'At least he made clear that there are some clear limits under the Commerce Clause. To me, that suggests a Chief Justice who's trying to do the right thing,' said Stephen B. Presser, a law professor at Northwestern University."

You should read, even if just part of it, yourself as well as the Constitution, then you won't have to appeal to authority — a logical fallacy. I mean the dissent and the majority.

Also, I already acknowledged, Roberts still set a limit on the Commerce Clause. What's activism here, is he re-wrote the law and in a way that it was not promoted in order to pass it. It's fraud. Either way his re-write part is not at all conservative "boilerplate." So he didn't re-write the Constitution which is the more common manner of activism, but he re-wrote it to fit the Constitution.

I made up my mind earlier that this was not Constitutional because I go by not just strict construction but also original intent. I don't rely on SC justices alone. Most of what is done today by our govt has been unConstitutional since the 1930's. So I don't consider a Rupert Murdoch news organ like the WSJ to really be conservative. It's now NeoConservative. And there's a difference between "trying" to do the right thing and actually "doing" the right thing.
Those are weasel words.